G.R. Nos. L-29777-83. March 26, 1971
GREGORIO SOLIS, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Petition of Gregorio Solis for review on certiorari of the
decision and orders rendered by respondent Court of Appeals, in its Cases
CA-G.R. Nos. 14811-R to 14817-R entitled, “People of the Philippines vs.
Gregorio Solis, et al.,” affirming his conviction by former judge Jose N. Leuterio of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur.
Petitioner Gregorio Solis and several other co-accused
were indicted, tried and found guilty of malversation
of public funds in Criminal Cases Nos. 2510-2516 of the Court of First Instance
of Camarines Sur. The judgment was penned and signed on 19 June 1954 by the Honorable Jose N.
Leuterio, then Judge-at-Large assigned to Camarines Sur.
All the accused were summoned to appear for promulgation of the
judgment on 19 June 1954,
but no court proceeding was had on that day, as the President of the Philippines
had declared it a special public holiday.
On 20 June 1954,
Republic Act No. 1186, which abolished all existing positions of
Judges-at-Large, took effect without Executive approval.
On 21 June 1954,
the defendants appeared before the court; this time, the court was presided
over by Honorable Perfecto R. Palacio, judge of
another sala of the court. Judge Palacio
promulgated the judgment of judge Leuterio, against
the objections of herein petitioner.
Petitioner Solis appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals
and the cases were docketed therein as CA-G. R. Nos. 14811-R
to 14817-R. In said appellate
court, he raised in issue and attacked the validity of
the promulgation of the judgment of the lower court, for having been made by
another judge after the incumbency of the judge who rendered it had ceased.
The Solicitor-General’s brief, in the Court of Appeals, agreed
that the promulgation was illegal and void.
Nevertheless, on 20
November 1965, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision,
modifying petitioner’s sentence in CA-G. R. No. 14811-R,
acquitting him in CA-G.R. No. 14812-R and CA-G. R. No. 14813-R, and affirming the lower court’s decision in CA-G.
R. Nos. 14814-R to 14817-R; but petitioner’s new counsel were
not served a copy of the appellate court’s decision. What they received was a notification,
almost three (3) years later, that is, on 25 August 1968, from the bondsman of
petitioner, informing them that the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur had issued an order
for petitioner Solis to appear therein for execution of judgment in the
criminal cases.
It was only on 5
September 1968 that petitioner’s counsel received a copy of the
Court of Appeals decision.
On 29 August 1968,
petitioner filed an urgent motion with the Court of Appeals asking it to
restrain the lower court from executing the decision, to order the recall of
the records, and to cause the service of the decision of the Court of Appeals
on petitioner’s counsel. Acting thereon,
the Court of Appeals directed its Deputy Clerk of Court to send a telegram to
the lower court to suspend execution of sentence, required its Judgment Section
to immediately serve a copy of the decision, and to explain within ten (10)
days why no copy had been served on petitioner’s counsel; but the Court of
Appeals did not order the recall of the records.
On 21 September, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion
for the recall of the records but granted him a period of twenty (20) days to
file his motion for reconsideration of the decision. Thereupon, notwithstanding the absence of
the records in the Court of Appeals, petitioner submitted his motion for
reconsideration. It was denied on 28 October 1968.
Hence, on 11 November 1968, appellant Solis interposed in this
Court the present petition for review, squarely presenting the issue of the
invalidity of the decision of the Court of First Instance and of the legality
of the actuations of the Court of Appeals in remanding the records even before
service of copy of its decision on petitioner’s counsel and in arbitrarily
refusing to have the records recalled while the case was still pending before
it.
The present case of certiorari was considered submitted
for decision without respondents’ brief,[1]
as the Office of the Solicitor General manifested that “the only
consistent stand that the People can adopt is to agree with petitioner’s
posture.”[2]
Upon the facts heretofore stated, the judgment of trial judge
Jose N. Leuterio was promulgated (on 21 June 1954)
one (1) day after his position as Judge-at-Large was abolished (on 20 June
1954) by Republic Act 1186. The judgment
is, therefore, void, for it is now firmly established in our jurisprudence that
a decision is void if promulgated after the judge who rendered it had
permanently ceased to be a judge of the court where he sat in judgment. Thus, a judgment is a nullity if it had been
promulgated after the judge had actually vacated the office and accepted
another office[3];
or when the term of office of the judge has ended[4];
or when he has left the Bench[5]
or after the judge had vacated his post in view of the abolition of his
position as Judge-at-Large under Republic Act 1186;[6];
or after the cessation or termination of his incumbency as such judge. Section 6 of Rule 116 of the old Rules of
Court, allowing the dispensing with the presence of the judge in the reading of
a sentence, applies only to the physical absence of the judge, being construed
to mean that the decision of the judge may be promulgated even without his
presence, as long as he is still a judge of that court.[7] A
sentence has been set aside where the judge who presided in the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija had
been extended an ad interim appointment to the Court of First Instance
of Manila, to which position he qualified before the judgment was filed with
the Clerk of the former court.[8]
Nullity likewise attached to a dismissal order when the temporary assignment of
the judge that rendered it had been terminated before the order was issued,
because a new judge for the same court qualified.[9]
The main ground upon which the Court of Appeals held the
contested judgment of the Court of First Instance to be valid is that
“since the approval of Republic Act 1186, effective 20 June 1954, was not
yet publicly or generally known on 21 June 1954, judge Leuterio
should be considered as a judge de facto of said court and the
promulgation of his appealed decision on said date is valid and legally
effective”.[10]
This is a misapplication of the doctrine laid down in the very case cited by
the Court of Appeals. In Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez, supra, a judge de facto was
defined as one who has the reputation of being the officer he assumes to be and
yet is not a good officer in point of law because there exists some defect in
his appointment or his right to exercise judicial functions at the particular
time (37 Phil. on page 192); but it is “essential to the validity of the
acts of a de facto judge, that he is actually acting under some
color of right” (case cit. on page 190).
In the present case, Judge Leuterio did not
actually act or perform or exercise the duties of judge when his decision was
promulgated, as he had ceased to be one, and the decision was promulgated under
another presiding judge. The other cases
cited by the Court of Appeals (Regala v. Judge of the
Court of First Instance of Bataan, 77 Phil. 684; U.
S. v. Abalos, 1 Phil. 73) were similarly misapplied, as
said decisions refer to the acts of a de facto judge, not to
a case where he did not act.
It follows that the Court of Appeals’ decision can not stand,
there being no validly promulgated judgment of the trial court from which an
appeal could be taken. This conclusion
renders it unnecessary to pass upon the alleged error of the Court of Appeals
in prematurely remanding the records to the court of origin and later refusing
to recall the same.
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the decision of the respondent
Court of Appeals and the decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur are hereby voided
and set aside. The records of the
criminal cases are hereby ordered returned to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, for new
adjudication by the judge presiding therein, in accordance with the evidence
already introduced, and for further proceeding conformable to law. No costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor, and
Makasiar, JJ., concur.
[1]
Resolution, 12 November 1970,
Rollo, page 206.
[2]
Manifestation, 9 February 1971,
Rollo, pages 209-210.
[3] Lino Luna v. Rodriguez, 37 Phil. 186.
[4] Garchitorena v. Crescini,
37 Phil. 675.
[5] People v. CA & Domalaon, 99
Phil. 786.
[6] People v. Bonifacio So, 101 Phil.
1257, unrep.
[7] Ong Siu v. Paredes, L-21638, 26
July 1966, 17 SCRA 661.
[8] People v. Soria, L-25175, 1 March 1968, 22 SCRA 948.
[9] Siazon v. CFI of Cotabato,
L-29354, 27 January 1969,
26 SCRA 664.
[10] Decision of the Court of Appeals, Annex “B” to Petition,
page 56, Rollo, page 100.